Happy Thanksgiving!

Today marks the 450th anniversary of the first Protestant Thanksgiving worship service on North American territory, at Fort Caroline, Florida (near modern-day Jacksonville), on June 30, 1564, by French Huguenot colonists. 

It was in 1562 that the first French Huguenot expedition, organized by Admiral Gaspard de Coligny and led by Jean Ribault, landed on the bluffs of the St. John's River, and staked their claim to the site. The second expedition, led by Ribault's second-in-command, René Goulaine de Laudonnière, returned on June 22, 1564, and by June 29, his men had constructed a fort named in honor of King Charles IX of France. The following day, Laudonnière held a service of thanksgiving in which, he wrote, “On the morrow about the break of day, I commanded a trumpet to be sounded, that being assembled we might give God thankes for our favourable and happie arrivall. Then wee sang a Psalme of thanksgiving unto God, beseeching him that it would please him of his grace to continue his accustomed goodness toward his poore servaunts, and ayde us in all our enterprises that all might turne to his glory and the advancement of our king.”

This Thanksgiving service took place 54 years before the Berkeley Hundred Colony, Virginia Thanksgiving celebration (December 19, 1619) and 56 years before the Pilgrims' Thanksgiving celebration at Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts, in the autumn of 1621. Although summer may not seem to us today to be the ideal season for thanksgiving, yet we can take every opportunity to remember with gratitude "the grace of God's accustomed goodness to his poor servants," and today, we might give special thanks to him for the legacy of those brave French Huguenots souls who settled in Florida 450 years ago and staked a claim for the banner of Christ in North America. "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you" (1 Thess. 5.18).

Self-Preservation Must Stoop to Truth-Preservation

John H. Thompson, A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ: Being the Last Speeches and Testimonies of Those Who Have Suffered For the Truth in Scotland, Since the Year 1680, pp. 247, 294-295, 371:

[James Robertson, died December 15, 1682]: "Now, ye who are charging me this day, and others of my brethren, sufferers for the truth, to be guilty of self-murder, and so a breach of the sixth commandment (which is very false, for self-preservation must stoop to truth's preservation), did our blessed Lord establish an advocate to plead for Him? Did that valiant champion Stephen do it? but was free and positive in asserting his testimony. Or did Paul do it? Or show me any such precept or practice from Scripture? Yea, consider the nature of witnessing; it proveth the contrary; but I prove such as do this to be actually guilty of the breach of the second commandment, which is that, 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' (Exod. xx. 4). For, as I have proved before, he is set up in Christ's room, and exerciseth authority in and by that abominable arrogate Supremacy, having intermixed things civil with ecclesiastic, by their Acts of Parliament, making them both alike inherent to the crown, and so cannot be owned in either, without sacrilegious idolatry, and so a breach of this commandment. As also of the fifth commandment, which concerneth natural or civil parents, which are to be owned and obeyed only in the Lord, which cannot in the least allow of any man's being absolutely supreme, even in civil matters; it being the ordinance of God, and a lawful magistrate the minister of God, bound to dispense His ordinance, according to His rule in the word, and according to the ancient laws of the kingdom. For, as in the obeying of lawful power, it is obedience to this commandment; so, upon the contrary, the owning and obeying an unlawful power (such as theirs), certainly must be a breach of it.

[John Nisbet, the Younger, died April 14, 1683]: "Now, these that are charging me with self-murder, which is a breach of the sixth commandment, are very false; for self-preservation must stoop to truth's preservation. And further, I have that much of humanity, that I love my life, but cannot redeem it with the loss of my integrity; but I prove such as do these things which they would have me to do, are actually guilty of the breach of the second commandment, which is, 'Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image;' for I cannot say, but it is a worshipping of images to yield to them in these things, now when they have seated themselves in Christ's room. Therefore I exhort you all, to beware of joining with them in their sins, lest ye partake with them in their plagues, now when they have made it manifest, that they will have no king but Charles Stuart. Wherefore I think it is our duty to cleave to Christ; we must either quit Christ or Charles.

[James Nisbet, died June 5, 1684]: "It is true none can merit heaven by their sufferings, but it is as true that He has said, 'He that will not forsake all and take up his cross and follow me, he cannot be my disciple.' Now I know there are many will brand me with self-murder, because I have got so many an offer to go Carolina upon such easy terms. But as to that I answer, Self-preservation must stoop to truth's preservation. There are indeed many of this generation who pretend to keep their present ease and to be followers of Christ; but I defy any, if they be called to a public testimony, but they shall either lose their present possession, or else that which is of more worth, even their immortal souls and everlasting salvation.

The Ejected

On Black Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1662, approximately 2,000 ministers were ejected from the Church of England for refusing to acede to the terms of the Act of Uniformity. Who were these men who were so ignominiously cast out?

James Hamilton, "Bartholomew's Day, 1662," in Works, Vol. 4, pp. 351-352:

Who were these ministers whom the Church of England thus cast forth from her bosom, and who, for the next six-and-twenty years, were treated, by a profligate court and a haughty hierarchy, as the troublers of the realm, and the offscouring of all things? They included such men as Goodwin and Owen—the two names of renown in Congregational annals, and each of them still standing up gigantic as we look back along the centuries. They included Matthew Poole, that mighty biblical scholar, who, in his five enormous folios, has given the essence of all previous commentators. They included men of massive thought, like Thomas Manton and Joseph Caryl; men of fruitful fancy and entertaining information, like Bridge and Brooks, and Nehemiah Eogers and Fenner, and Adams and Burgess: whose voluminous writings rise from the field of our religious literature like a twin mountain-range—the one set, in their very disintegration, supplying the rich alluvium which covers the vale with corn, and makes it smile —the other rolling down those golden nuggets which have made the fortune of explorers from every sect and region. They included such men as Howe, whose lofty intellect and luminous insight give us new conceptions of the majesty of mind, and whose walk with God, so lowly and so loving, reminds us of the seraphim, attracted towards the Light of lights, but veiling their faces as they approach the overwhelming vision,—such men as Havel, the rapture of whose spirit would have made him touch the earth but lightly, had not his holy benevolence drawn him down into the abodes of his brethren; such men as Alleine, of whom it has been said that, "in fidelity and tenderness, in toils for the salvation of men, in frequent converse with eternal things, he was scarcely inferior to Paul himself, the first of human teachers, the inspired prince of mankind ;"1 such men as Baxter, whose Call to the Unconverted, and Everlasting Rest, still waken echoes in men's hearts, and are still a living presence in the world.

These, and such as these, were the men whom Charles in his perfidy and the bishops in their bigotry cast forth from the Church of England. These, and such as these, were the men, who, yea being yea, and nay being nay, knew nothing of subscription in a sense non-natural, and who, rather than accept a mess of pottage poisoned by falsehood or embittered by self-contempt, threw away their earthly all, and cast themselves on Providence.

1 W. Rhodes, in Stanford's Life of J. Alleine, p. 379.

Pharaoh, Haman, Judas and Herod

His life was like a shooting star, that burned brilliantly but briefly. Hugh McKail, a young minister for only about five years, the reason he died a martyr's death can largely be traced to certain comments in his inaugural sermon on September 1, 1662, in Edinburgh, and the revenge that was exacted for those remarks.

John Howie, The Scots Worthies, p. 453:

From the last sermon which [Hugh McKail] delivered at that time, in the High Church of Edinburgh, from Song i.7., may be dated the commencement of his sufferings. In this sermon he fearlessly showed that it was no new thing for the church to be involved in persecution; and, amplifying the subject, he said, -- a Pharaoh on the throne, a Haman in the state, and a Judas in the church, had done the work in former times; and although in his allusion to Haman and Judas he made no application, yet [Archbishop James] Sharp and [John Maitland, Duke of] Lauderdale thought their portraits had been very accurately drawn; and therefore M'Kail was singled out as a very proper person to be put to silence.

The Coltness Collections, p. 47, add that he said:

Let Pharoah, let Haman, let Judas, let Herod, let each of them speak their expeience of God's faithfulness! Let all that have ears to hear, and hearing acknowledge, that these that made themselves remarkable for persecution God stigmatized by his judgments.

Following this sermon, McKail became a hunted man, and was forced to flee to Holland for 2-3 years. After his return, though he had little involvement in the Pentland Rising, upon his capture, he was made an example, and suffered excruciatingly under the Boot, before uttering his famous dying words on the scaffold on December 22, 1666:

Farewell father and mother, friends and relations; -- Farewell the world and all delights; -- Farewell meat and drink; -- Farewell sun, moon, and stars; -- Welcome God and Father; -- Welcome sweet Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant; -- Welcome blessed Spirit of grace, and God of all consolation; -- Welcome glory; -- Welcome eternal life; -- and, Welcome death!

Although not all applications are precise, the following are the leading candidates corresponding to the references made, and it is well known that Archbishop Sharp never forgave nor forgot that 1662 sermon and personally ensured that McKail paid the price.

Pharoah -- King Charles II (subscribed the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant at Spey on June 23, 1650, and at Scone on January 1, 1651, and after the Restoration had copies of the latter burned by the hangman all over England on May 22, 1661). He was the king during the Killing Time.

Haman -- Commissioner John Middleton, Earl of Middleton (served the king's interests in Scotland, appointed commander-in-chief of the troops in Scotland and Lord High Commissioner to the Scottish Parliament); John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale (Maitland was a former Covenanter and served as a member of the Westminster Assembly, but switched loyalties and ingratiated himself with King Charles, becoming his close confidant, a member of the Cabal Ministry, and a persecutor of the Covenanters).

Judas -- Archbishop James Sharp (once a leader of the Scottish Resolutioners, during his negotiations with King Charles, he secretly switched sides, forsaking the Covenanters for preferment by the king, he adopted a policy of persecution towards his former friends). He survived one assassination attempt in 1668, but was killed by a group of Covenanters in 1679.

Herod -- James, Duke of York (brother of King Charles II, he later became King James II during the final phase of the Killing Time until he was deposed by the Glorious Revolution).

Dem Barebones

Puritan names are a subject of great fascination, and much could (and, Lord willing, will) be said here at this blog about the thinking behind the names Puritan parents chose for their children, along with examples, but one family -- which is described here as 'Puritan' only very loosely -- surpasses all others, I think, for uniqueness and creativity: the Barebones family.

The surname is described as 'Barbon' or 'Barebone.' The patriarch may have had a common name: John. Little is known about him, and in fact, much of the family information that we have is sketchy. It is thought that he came from the town of Barbon, England.

He had one son known as Praise-God Barebone (c. 1596-1679). He was a leather-seller, and a lay preacher. He has variously been described as a "Baptist," "Anabaptist," "Brownist" and "Fifth Monarchist." Actually, he wrote a tract on behalf of paedo-baptism in 1642, though -- oddly -- in the 1630s, two men were chosen to jointly pastor a baptist congregation -- Henry Jessey and Praise-God Barebone. In 1653, he was elected to the Nominated Assembly, also known as the "Little Parliament" and "Parliament of Saints," but more commonly named for Praise-God himself, as the "Barebones Parliament," which lasted just five months. He was zealous in the cause of the Commonwealth and actively opposed the Restoration of Charles II.

It is said that he had two brothers with even more striking names: Christ-came-into-the-world-to-save Barebone and If-Christ-had-not-died-thou-hadst-been-damned Barebone, the latter of which was abridged to 'Damned Barebone.' There is no documented proof of these brothers' existence, yet there are also various reports which speak of them as sons of Praise-God, rather than brothers; the details are so fuzzy, it seems to me, that there is not enough solid information to say much at all about them, but the names are famous nevertheless.

It is believed by many that Praise-God Barebone had at least one son, Nicholas Barebone (c. 1640-1698). Much more is known about him. A member of the College of Physicians, he had a major role in the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire of 1666, and is credited as being the founder of modern fire insurance, also writing much as an economic theorist.

The Barebones are a memorable curiosity, even if their factual history is fuzzy. The names have inspired ridicule, poetry and a great deal of research, with little to show for it. But their fifteen minutes of fame has been extended through the centuries to reach this little blog because today is 'Funny Friday' and dem Barebones fit the bill.

Mayflower of London

Everyone knows the name of the ship that brought the Pilgrims from Southampton, England to Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 - the Mayflower. The replica ship that sits in "commodious" Plymouth Harbor bears the name Mayflower II, having made a similar crossing in 1957. However, there are records of another vessel which bore the name Mayflower -- historians refer to it as "Mayflower of London" to distinguish it from the original Mayflower. Records show that a Mayflower sailed to Salem and Plymouth in 1629, and those records suggest it could not have been the same as of Christopher Jones, who served as master of the original Mayflower from 1609 to 1622. Then the 1629 Mayflower proceeded to sail on to Charleston, South Carolina, arriving on July 1, 1630. The "Mayflower of London" sailed again from England to America in 1633 only instead of transporting Pilgrims or Puritans, this one transported French Huguenot refugees. King Charles I, who was so hostile to Puritans, was more sympathetic with the French Protestant refugees who came to England, and agreeable to their wishes to help Sir Robert Heath settle colonial South Carolina. When the "Mayflower of London" sailed in 1633 its intended destination was Charleston; however, it actually landed in Virginia and its passengers were stranded there in October 1633 for some months until passage to South Carolina could be arranged. The "Mayflower of London" sailed again in 1639 from England to (presumably) Boston. Another crossing was attempted in 1641 and this time its planned destination was Virginia but it never arrived. The "Mayflower of London" was presumably lost somewhere in the north Atlantic. We do well to remember not only the Pilgrims' Mayflower, but also the "Mayflower of London," which carried Puritans and Huguenots to America as well.

Who is the Queen of Bohemia?

Westminster Directory of Public Worship:

Of Publick Prayer Before the Sermon:
...
To pray for all in authority, especially for the King's Majesty; that God would make him rich in blessings, both in his person and government; establish his throne in religion and righteousness, save him from evil counsel, and make him a blessed and glorious instrument for the conservation and propagation of the gospel, for the encouragement and protection of them that do well, the terror of all that do evil, and the great good of the whole church, and of all his kingdoms; for the conversion of the Queen, the religious education of the Prince, and the rest of the royal seed; for the comforting of the afflicted Queen of Bohemia, sister to our Sovereign; and for the restitution and establishment of the illustrious Prince Charles, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, to all his dominions and dignities; for a blessing upon the High Court of Parliament, (when sitting in any of these kingdoms respectively,) the nobility, the subordinate judges and magistrates, the gentry, and all the commonality; for all pastors and teachers, that God would fill them with his Spirit, make them exemplarily holy, sober, just, peaceable, and gracious in their lives; sound, faithful, and powerful in their ministry; and follow all their labours with abundance of success and blessing; and give unto all his people pastors according to his own heart; for the universities, and all schools and religious seminaries of church and commonwealth, that they may flourish more and more in learning and piety; for the particular city or congregation, that God would pour out a blessing upon the ministry of the word, sacraments, and discipline, upon the civil government, and all the several families and persons therein; for mercy to the afflicted under any inward or outward distress; for seasonable weather, and fruitful seasons, as the time may require; for averting the judgments that we either feel or fear, or are liable unto as famine, pestilence, the sword, and such like.

The Westminster Directory of Public Worship is indeed a directory, and not a liturgy, as it states in the preface. One evidence for this appears in the fact that the form of public prayer before the sermon proposed as an example cites the names of specific individuals when it comes that section on praying for those in authority as commanded in 1 Tim. 2.1-4. It is the rubric here which we are to follow rather than a wooden adherence to the form. Obviously, Christians today should not be praying for the "Queen of Bohemia," who is long-deceased, much less is this a forward-thinking reference to the famous rhapsody by an English rock band. The principle is that we ought to pray by name for those in authority over us, as the Westminster Divines have illustrated with concrete examples in this text. Americans do well to pray for the President, Congress, Supreme Court Justices, your Governor and others in positions of leadership. But just who is this "Queen of Bohemia," and the others here mentioned? For the historically curious, I have researched the information below and inserted hyperlinks in the text if anyone wishes to delve deeper into these historical personages. Remember that the Directory was published in 1645.

• King -- King Charles I (1600-1649), son of King James VI of Scotland/I of England. His tyranny over the church led to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. He was defeated following the First English Civil War (1642-1645), and ultimately, he was executed by Parliament in 1649. Yet, in this prayer, the Divines advise Christians to pray "that God would make him rich in blessings, both in his person and government; establish his throne in religion and righteousness, save him from evil counsel, and make him a blessed and glorious instrument for the conservation and propagation of the gospel, for the encouragement and protection of them that do well, the terror of all that do evil, and the great good of the whole church, and of all his kingdoms," which is a lesson for us in how to pray for an ungodly magistrate.

• Queen -- Henrietta Maria (Henriette-Marie) of France, Queen Consort of England (1609-1669), was the wife of King Charles I and mother of two kings, Charles II and James II. She was the daughter of King Henry IV of France, the Huguenot-turned-Catholic, and her brother would become King Louis XIII of France. She was raised a Roman Catholic, which is why the Divines instruct Christians to pray for her conversion.

• Prince -- Charles II (1630-1685) was a teen prince when the Divines were sitting at Westminster but, following his father's execution, was later crowned King of the Scots in 1651, and returned to rule Britain at the Restoration in 1660. He was a true Stuart; he is the king who enforced prelatic religious conformity in his kingdoms and inaugurated the "Killing Times" in Scotland.

• Queen of Bohemia -- Elizabeth (1596-1662) was a princess, daughter of King James VI/I and Anne of Denmark, and sister to King Charles I, as well as cousin to King Frederick III of Denmark. She married Frederick V, Elector Palatine of Germany, also known as the Winter King, for his short reign as Frederick I, King of Bohemia, which ended upon his defeat at the Battle of White Mountain (November 8, 1620), whereupon he was forced exile at The Hague. Thus, Princess Elizabeth became the "afflicted Queen of Bohemia," also known as the Winter Queen.

• Prince Charles, Elector Palatine of the Rhine -- Charles Louis (Karl Ludwig) (1617-1680) was the son of Frederick V and Elizabeth of Bohemia, making him the nephew of King Charles I. He was a particular friend of the English Puritans, even appearing once at the sitting of the Westminster Assembly, and was allowed to speak, thanking the Divines for remembering him and his family in the Directory's proposed prayer.

And here are the hyperlinks for more information:

To pray for all in authority, especially for the King's Majesty; that God would make him rich in blessings, both in his person and government; establish his throne in religion and righteousness, save him from evil counsel, and make him a blessed and glorious instrument for the conservation and propagation of the gospel, for the encouragement and protection of them that do well, the terror of all that do evil, and the great good of the whole church, and of all his kingdoms; for the conversion of the Queen, the religious education of the Prince, and the rest of the royal seed; for the comforting of the afflicted Queen of Bohemia, sister to our Sovereign; and for the restitution and establishment of the illustrious Prince Charles, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, to all his dominions and dignities; for a blessing upon the High Court of Parliament, (when sitting in any of these kingdoms respectively,) the nobility, the subordinate judges and magistrates, the gentry, and all the commonality; for all pastors and teachers, that God would fill them with his Spirit, make them exemplarily holy, sober, just, peaceable, and gracious in their lives; sound, faithful, and powerful in their ministry; and follow all their labours with abundance of success and blessing; and give unto all his people pastors according to his own heart; for the universities, and all schools and religious seminaries of church and commonwealth, that they may flourish more and more in learning and piety; for the particular city or congregation, that God would pour out a blessing upon the ministry of the word, sacraments, and discipline, upon the civil government, and all the several families and persons therein; for mercy to the afflicted under any inward or outward distress; for seasonable weather, and fruitful seasons, as the time may require; for averting the judgments that we either feel or fear, or are liable unto as famine, pestilence, the sword, and such like.

Godly Commonwealth

During the Interregnum (1649-1660), England was governed as a Commonwealth, that is, as a republic rather than a monarchy. It was a heady time for Puritans, even those who opposed the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell 'the Usurper.' They envisioned, prayed for and worked towards a godly, theocratic government, rather than the arbitrary, despotic government that the Stuart kings had personified. This was true even of those Puritans -- and there were many -- who opposed the regicide of Charles I and desired the return of the covenanted Charles II.

It is worth taking note of two particular Puritan treatises advocating theocratic government, which have much in common: Richard Baxter's A Holy Commonwealth and John Eliot's The Christian Commonwealth. Both were published in 1659 (although Eliot's treatise was actually written, it is believed, in the 1640s), and both were later retracted by the authors for pragmatic reasons (Eliot retracted his work in 1662, and Baxter in 1670, to please the royalist authorities and remove a "stumbling-block" of offense for those who perceived seditious tendencies in their works). Both books were born from a "common impulse" to see society governed under the headship of King Jesus. William Lamont writes in his introduction to the 1994 edition of Baxter's Holy Commonwealth (pp. xvi, xxvii) that:

[Baxter] knew all about New England from, among others, John Eliot, the missionary who was converting the native Indians to Christianity. The excited correspondence of the two men -- for there were parallels in the problems posed by American heathens and Kidderminster reprobates -- throughout the 1650s would result in two near-identical titles, published in the same year of 1659: Baxter's Holy Commonwealth and Eliot's Christian Commonwealth.

In 1659, Richard Baxter -- who although he had supported Parliament in the 1640s in its military resistance to King Charles I, had never quite fully supported Oliver Cromwell -- was enthusiastic in his support of Richard Cromwell, whom he viewed as magistrate with great potential and lacking in his father's regicidal and tyrannical baggage (Lamont describes A Holy Commonwealth as a 'love poem to Richard Cromwell').

A Holy Commonwealth was written in a turbulent, euphoric time when Baxter saw great things ahead. It contains 380 theses designed to 1) justify Baxter's support for Parliament in the 1640s, 2) lay out the groundwork for Biblical magistracy, include the proper theocratic relationship between church and state, 3) respond to James Harrington's views on the utopian republic as described in The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), and 4) provide a Biblical and historical rationale for the obedience of subjects to lawful magistrates and their resistance to tyrants. As a result of the fast-changing political scenario in England, a series of Meditations was included by Baxter at the end of the work when it was published which reflect the dismay he felt at the direction the nation had taken in the short time between when he wrote the work and when it was ready for the press. The 1994 edition includes his 1670 recantation of (parts of) the work as well. The reasons for his retraction are complex having to do with the political baggage it brought to the Protectorate as well as to him personally during the Restoration, rather than the substance of his arguments. When reading it today, it helps to remember the context of its initial writing, the subsequent Meditations, its later retraction and its place in Baxter's political writings overall. It is a curious and valuable work for these reasons.

George R. Abernathy, Jr., wrote, "The English Presbyterians and the Stuart Restoration, 1648-1663," in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 55, Part 2 (1965), p. 25:

A single quotation from the Holy Commonwealth is sufficient to indicate Baxter's basic position:

If the whole Family, with whom the People were in Covenant be extirpated, or become uncapable, the People may forme the Government as they please, (so they contradict not the Law of God:) not by Authority, but by Contract with the next chosen Government; nor as Subjects, but as Free men, the Government being dissolved.80

80 Ibid., p. 451 [this is Thesis 375, which appears on p. 208 of the 1994 edition]; italics added.

Meanwhile, John Eliot wrote The Christian Commonwealth: or, The Civil Policy of the Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ from New England in the 1640s as encouraging reports came in from the mother country that godly magistracy was coming into its own. The manuscript was shared with friends in England, but sat around for over a decade before someone took occasion to send it to the printer. Although the timing may have seemed auspicious just then, those fast-changing events in England proved otherwise. After the Restoration, Massachusetts authorities, eager to curry favor from the Crown, banned the book and required Eliot to provide a written retraction and apology. Like Baxter, it appears that he did so to avoid giving offense rather than because he actually repudiates the principles contained within. This book, which advocates the Headship of Christ over England and all the nations, including the political sphere, and the institution of theocratic civil government modeled after Exodus 18, is said to be "the first book of political theory written by an American and also the first book to be banned by an American government."

King James Psalter

Besides the 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible, commonly known as the King James Bible, two Psalters bear the name of King James I of England, VI of Scotland, published in 1631 and 1636, respectively. These Psalters reflect the poetic interest of King James in versifying the Psalms, as many noblemen of his day also desired to do. The interest of the king in this project, however, forced others to laid aside their intended goals. One such poet was William Drummond of Hawthornden, whose attempt merited this frank response from Sir William Alexander of Menstrie, Earl of Stirling:

Brother, I received your last letter, with the Psalm you sent, which I think very well done. I had done the same long before it came; but He [King James] prefers his own to all else; tho' perchance when you see it, you will think it the worst of of the Three. No man must meddle with that Subject, and therefore I advise you to take no more Pains therein. (Millar Patrick, Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody, p. 83)

King James continued his efforts to 'improve' upon the metrical Psalms already in use; when he died this was alluded to in his 1625 funeral sermon:

The King our Master, was in hand (when God called him to sing Psalmes with the Angels) with the translation of our Church Psalmes, which he intended to have finished, and dedicated withall to the onely saint of his devotion, the Church of Great Britain, and that of Ireland. The worke was staied in the one and thirty Psalme. (Ibid, p. 84)

After the king's death, King Charles I charged Sir William Alexander to ensure that the metrical Psalms of King James saw the light of day. And so, in 1631, a version bearing his name was published (it was called The Psalmes of David translated by King James and the title page showed King David holding a harp on one side and King James on the other with a sceptre, while both men also held books). In fact, the work of this version is mostly that of Alexander himself, and while he was a distinguished poet, this Psalter, despite or because of the royal backing behind it, inspired a negative reaction, and the publication (probably by David Calderwood) of Reasons against the Reception of King James' Metaphrase of the Psalmes (cf., The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, Vol. 3, p. 530), and so was commonly referred to as the 'Menstrie Psalms'. Alexander was disappointed in his expectation of profits from the royal patent he received from King Charles. It is said that "[i]t seems clear that Charles must have winked hard in permitting the licence, as he must have known that the proportion of James to Alexander was as Falstaff's bread to his sack."

Another edition was published in 1636 after considerable revision (without notice of the same), and it too received the same widespread opposition. Two years later, Charles attempted to force the Anglican liturgy upon the church of Scotland, and the violent response that ensued, notably exemplified in the stool-throwing of Jenny Geddes, was in part the fruit of frustration over a long pattern of such attempts to force the royal will upon the church's singing of Psalms.

The King James Psalters, not to be confused with the 1650 Scottish metrical Psalter found in the back of King James Bibles published today by the Trinitarian Bible Society, for example, are footnotes of history now, but they played a part, before and after the king's death, in the rising tide that would eventually result in stalwart Puritan resistance to Stuart attempts to meddle with the church's beloved Psalms against the will of God's people.